7 ms·

But were consumers really clamoring for 3D, for example? No they weren't. IMO it wasn't worth the extra money. After all, just how many times can someone re-wa

But were consumers really clamoring for 3D, for example? No they weren't. IMO it wasn't worth the extra money. After all, just how many times can someone re-watch Avatar? Most other 3D movies weren't actually shot in 3D, they were just faked in post production. Here's a headline that shows just how dead 3D is: With a bullet to the head from Samsung, 3D TV is now deader than ever It may shamble forward zombie-style for a few more years, but without the world's No. 1 TV maker on board, 3D TV is doomed. http://www.cnet.com/news/3d-tv-is-now-more-dead-than-ever/ http://www.cnet.com/news/3d-tv-is-now-more-dead-than-ever/

ghaff 10y ago
I actually have a 3D TV that I got on a pre-Christmas sale. My story is that I didn't really pay a premium for the 3D aspects of the TV (which included glasses) and I'm sticking to that story :-) I think I've maybe watched a half dozen 3D movies on it. I've watched a few films that did a good job with it. But they're few and far between.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  The reason why most people avoided them especially the "passive" ones is that the "filter" they used on the panels made the normal TV experience slightly worse if you are pedantic about image quality. The image tends to be bit more fuzzy and dimmer than on 2D displays but again it's a compromise some of the latest 3D TV's pretty much are indistinguishable from 2D only panels but overall the lack of content was what killed it rather than the performance of the TV itself. Sure you still have some viewing angle issues which might make some living/TV room setups not optimal for 3D and most TV's only came initially with 1-2 pairs of glasses and if it was a active 3D setup (had an active switching component inside of them) they could be somewhat expensive but if the content was there it wouldn't matter. If there were more 3D blurays and DVD's out there and especially if Netflix or any other streaming service would have supported 3D content (3D streaming is still not a solved issue somewhat) the outcome would've been different. Overall once 3D content is going to be easily streamable (and it's being worked on) and "glassesless" 3D/Stereoscopic panels become slightly cheaper it might make a comeback. Avatar was a nice experience but overall even in the cinema many people avoid 3D atm simply because it's still not there, these issues would be solved eventually and when every content would go through stereoscopic processing it would look pretty nice :)
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Mine is a Panasonic Viera that I got a year or so before they stopped making Plasmas. It's a nice panel even if, in retrospect, I might have gotten something less reflective for the room it's in. (Still, I use it very little when it's light out.) If there's a 3D Bluray of a movie I genuinely want to watch, I'll pick it up but there are very few. Funnily enough, I've never bought Avatar as I saw it in Imax 3D in the theatre and was pretty much "That was an impressive experience but I don't really need to watch an echo of a not-so-great movie again at home."
- rzzzt 10y ago
  There always seems to be a scene in which a random shrapnel or some object flies directly towards the viewer's face. I thoroughly dislike those; you don't have to remind me that we are watching a 3D movie.
  - douche 10y ago
    There are always the gimmicky scenes that are so clearly added in for the IMax and 3D "experience." My conclusion is that 3D must only be effective for chaotic and nonsensical chase sequences.
rodgerd 10y ago
> Most other 3D movies weren't actually shot in 3D, they were just faked in post production. In general, animated movies work very well, having watched the 3D versions of Frozen, Inside Out, and sundry others.
tempestn 10y ago
3D isn't really that much extra money though. If you've got a quality panel, you already have a high refresh rate. So all you need to add 3D, beyond a bit of software, is polarization or active glasses. It adds so little to the cost that it doesn't make much sense for manufacturers not to include it on high end TVs. Saying that 3D is "doomed" because one manufacturer is not bringing out new 3D models this year is, IMO, ridiculous. Eventually of course it will get much better, with no glasses, head tracking setups that are already in development. So 3D as we know it now of course won't last forever. But it's not like it's going away. Look at the percentage of movies released in 3D today compared to 5 years ago.
- pmontra 10y ago
  Do you have to stay in front of the tv or can you move around the room and do whatever you have to do? I almost never stay put in front of the tv, even when I watch movies. It's the advantage of being at home. I think 3D is really dying. Maybe VR headsets will revive it, but without TV screens. Or in a shorter time the head tracking technology you're writing about. But the problem is that having to stay in front of a screen in a fixed location of the house to watch something is becoming an alien concept, the same thing that happened to having to be there at exactly that hour to watch a show.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
"faked in post production" could cover a large amount of modern movie content, even when not in 3D. To give one example, the Foley artist who makes footsteps and other sound effects not captured live. Not necessarily a bad thing if it's done well

ghaff 10y ago

I actually have a 3D TV that I got on a pre-Christmas sale. My story is that I didn't really pay a premium for the 3D aspects of the TV (which included glasses) and I'm sticking to that story :-) I think I've maybe watched a half dozen 3D movies on it. I've watched a few films that did a good job with it. But they're few and far between.

dogma1138 10y ago
The reason why most people avoided them especially the "passive" ones is that the "filter" they used on the panels made the normal TV experience slightly worse if you are pedantic about image quality. The image tends to be bit more fuzzy and dimmer than on 2D displays but again it's a compromise some of the latest 3D TV's pretty much are indistinguishable from 2D only panels but overall the lack of content was what killed it rather than the performance of the TV itself. Sure you still have some viewing angle issues which might make some living/TV room setups not optimal for 3D and most TV's only came initially with 1-2 pairs of glasses and if it was a active 3D setup (had an active switching component inside of them) they could be somewhat expensive but if the content was there it wouldn't matter. If there were more 3D blurays and DVD's out there and especially if Netflix or any other streaming service would have supported 3D content (3D streaming is still not a solved issue somewhat) the outcome would've been different. Overall once 3D content is going to be easily streamable (and it's being worked on) and "glassesless" 3D/Stereoscopic panels become slightly cheaper it might make a comeback. Avatar was a nice experience but overall even in the cinema many people avoid 3D atm simply because it's still not there, these issues would be solved eventually and when every content would go through stereoscopic processing it would look pretty nice :)
- ghaff 10y ago
  Mine is a Panasonic Viera that I got a year or so before they stopped making Plasmas. It's a nice panel even if, in retrospect, I might have gotten something less reflective for the room it's in. (Still, I use it very little when it's light out.) If there's a 3D Bluray of a movie I genuinely want to watch, I'll pick it up but there are very few. Funnily enough, I've never bought Avatar as I saw it in Imax 3D in the theatre and was pretty much "That was an impressive experience but I don't really need to watch an echo of a not-so-great movie again at home."
rzzzt 10y ago
There always seems to be a scene in which a random shrapnel or some object flies directly towards the viewer's face. I thoroughly dislike those; you don't have to remind me that we are watching a 3D movie.
- douche 10y ago
  There are always the gimmicky scenes that are so clearly added in for the IMax and 3D "experience." My conclusion is that 3D must only be effective for chaotic and nonsensical chase sequences.

rodgerd 10y ago

> Most other 3D movies weren't actually shot in 3D, they were just faked in post production. In general, animated movies work very well, having watched the 3D versions of Frozen, Inside Out, and sundry others.

tempestn 10y ago

3D isn't really that much extra money though. If you've got a quality panel, you already have a high refresh rate. So all you need to add 3D, beyond a bit of software, is polarization or active glasses. It adds so little to the cost that it doesn't make much sense for manufacturers not to include it on high end TVs. Saying that 3D is "doomed" because one manufacturer is not bringing out new 3D models this year is, IMO, ridiculous. Eventually of course it will get much better, with no glasses, head tracking setups that are already in development. So 3D as we know it now of course won't last forever. But it's not like it's going away. Look at the percentage of movies released in 3D today compared to 5 years ago.

pmontra 10y ago
Do you have to stay in front of the tv or can you move around the room and do whatever you have to do? I almost never stay put in front of the tv, even when I watch movies. It's the advantage of being at home. I think 3D is really dying. Maybe VR headsets will revive it, but without TV screens. Or in a shorter time the head tracking technology you're writing about. But the problem is that having to stay in front of a screen in a fixed location of the house to watch something is becoming an alien concept, the same thing that happened to having to be there at exactly that hour to watch a show.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

"faked in post production" could cover a large amount of modern movie content, even when not in 3D. To give one example, the Foley artist who makes footsteps and other sound effects not captured live. Not necessarily a bad thing if it's done well